A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
Yeah - the modellers are so sure. But it just seems wrong to expect there is a simple mutational path to 3-fold more transmissibility over Wuhan (the figure mentioned today) and it didn't happen before now.
-
I can't believe someone can say 300% more transmissible and not just pause.
-
Well, Oli and Nuno said 220% more transmissible for P.1, so there's that :wink:. But I agree - I think we have to be very very careful lot to over interpret the data, which is much too easy to do. But ifwe're saying that SARS-CoV-2 now has an R0 of ~8-9 and no longer ~2.5 then, well shit...
-
Somebody on Twitter got it. [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2021-05-13 at 2.28.55 PM.png]
-
2021-05-13 14:49
Kristian G. Andersen
Angie asked me about writing a letter too - I think we should definitely do it... (with her and others)
-
@Kristian Andersen No - not more transmissible (IRRC) - just that it was transmitting faster (in the environment itwas in).
-
Oli might join it - he liked the snippet I sent him.
-
@Kristian Andersen Hmmm, that was not how I read it (I remember them looking at those separately by splitting out immune evasion and inherent transmission - but I need to look again).
-
It'd be great to have Oli on. Aris too? Do you know him? He seems very insightful.